The UK Investigatory Powers Tribunal’s ruling on Friday, that the regime that underpinned the sharing of bulk-collected intelligence between GCHQ and the NSA was unlawful until the end of last year, contradicts key statements made by leading political figures since the Guardian first published Edward Snowden’s leaks about mass US and UK internet monitoring in 2013.
The tribunal declared on Friday: “The regime governing the soliciting, receiving, storing and transmitting by UK authorities of private communications of individuals located in the UK, which have been obtained by US authorities … contravened Articles 8 or 10” of the European convention on human rights. Article 8 relates to the right to private and family life; article 10 refers to freedom of expression.
Here are some of the comments made before the ruling about the legality of the programmes exposed by Snowden.
David Cameron, British prime minister, 10 June 2013
I’m satisfied that we have intelligence agencies that do a fantastically important job for this country to keep us safe and they operate within the law … I am satisfied from the questions I ask and always will continue to ask that they operate in a way that is proper and that is fitting.
William Hague, British foreign secretary, 10 June 2013
Our agencies practise and uphold UK law at all times, even when dealing with information from outside the United Kingdom. It has been suggested that GCHQ uses our partnership with the United States to get around UK law, obtaining information that it cannot legally obtain in the United Kingdom. I wish to be absolutely clear that that accusation is baseless. Any data obtained by us from the United States involving UK nationals are subject to proper UK statutory controls and safeguards, including the relevant sections of the Intelligence Services Act, the Human Rights Act 1998, and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.
Our intelligence-sharing work with the United States is subject to ministerial and independent oversight, and to scrutiny by the Intelligence and Security Committee … The combination of a robust legal framework, ministerial responsibility, scrutiny by the intelligence services commissioners, and parliamentary accountability through the intelligence and security committee [which monitors the work of the British security services] should give a high level of confidence that the system works as intended.
Theresa May, British home secretary, 5 December 2014
The legal regimes that underpin the interception and intelligence-sharing activities of the agencies and their partners are both lawful and in line with our human rights obligations.
Sir Malcom Rifkind, chairman of the UK’s intelligence and security committee, 13 July 2013
Stories in the media have asserted that GCHQ had access to [US surveillance programme] Prism and thereby to the content of communications in the UK without proper authorisation. It is argued that, in so doing, GCHQ circumvented UK law. This is a matter of very serious concern: if true, it would constitute a serious violation of the rights of UK citizens.
It has been alleged that GCHQ circumvented UK law by using the NSA’s Prism programme to access the content of private communications. From the evidence we have seen, we have concluded that this is unfounded.
Although we have concluded that GCHQ has not circumvented or attempted to circumvent UK law, it is proper to consider further whether the current statutory framework governing access to private communications remains adequate. In some areas the legislation is expressed in general terms and more detailed policies and procedures have, rightly, been put in place around this work by GCHQ in order to ensure compliance with their statutory obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998.
